why do you assume there is a homosexual implication? the message is that Christ is human, not that he is a homosexual.
Ha! More nostalgia. I remember that album that came as a poster. "We should be fighting to promote Peace not each other..." I was labeled a peace punk for owning that.
OK, OK, I'm gonna contemplate a sexually aroused Jesus. Jesus has a boner a great big rod in his pants. Jesus has got one pointing in the air. Oh oh, Jesus who are you point at? Thy rod and thy staff the comfort me.
Geez, sorry, But I just don't bet a boner myself, do you? Anyway, you focus on Jesus and I'll focus on the Virgin Mary. I've got to do a major study to see where her hands are placed and if she squeezes her breasts or tucks them between her legs. I'm also going to be looking for pussy symbology in ancient art. WEEEEEE. Now my interest is piqued.
I remember when I was first committed, they wanted to give me a Rorschach test, and I said, Oh, you mean the "People F@%king Test".
Because he reinforces the fact that Christian Holidays really have nothing to do with Jesus.
EDIT: considering Easter is the worship of the Fertility God, we should find the pictures very fitting.
I find your desire to bash Christ an odd one. Have you inquired about professional mental help? I'm an atheist (even though I was baptized as a Christian and am quarter Jewish on my grandmother's side), but somehow I don't feel a desire to bash Christ, Mohammed, Jahve, Budha, or anyone else's deity(ies) of choice. In fact, I find many respect of Catholic and Orthodox beliefs fascinating. Sure, there fundies of most religions who make my blood boil, but feeling a desire to bash the symbols of a religion because a minority of their followers are insane makes you not very different from them. Identical to the fundies, in fact.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
*yawn* sure fundaheadcases are only a minority and christians are not responsible, poor poor moderates who mean noone any harm at all, so then why are they all up in our buisness, government, and dictating how we live, they can go flip on a channel and get fed their propaganda anytime. If you don't mind this is a free country and part of that is pointing out destructive elements anyhow, mind your own buisness I was not attacking anyone this was between me and adjidm.
You have to remember one thing: what is the side of "christianity" that you see everywhere? It's not the people out doing the good works, it's Robertson calling for us to assassinate Chavez, a democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation. It's Jim Bakker having sex with Jessica Hahn before going on TV to talk about fidelity in marraige. It's Jimmy Swaggart crying and begging for forgiveness for years of going to hookers. It's the pope bad mouthing a whole segment of society for loving someone other than who HE thinks they should love. With such wonderful examples, and for some people, a lot of negative personal experiences, is it any wonder that they have a negative opinion? You don't see anything about the people out there actually helping katrina victims, or running soup kitchens, or actually living the christian life. With nothing but the blowhards on every few channels when I see tv on, it's not really a surprise to hear such negative comments. Know that if you are NOT one of those, none of this is aimed at you, certainly not from me. It's the hypocrites that I have issues with. And as far as whether I can tell if someone is a good christian or not, all you have to do is LISTEN to them. The Robertson's always give themselves away. These are the people Christ warned you about.
Christianity is bankrupt and cashing in on a few last holy wars in this country on its way out.
And we see you mindlessly bashing Christians, i.e. you're not very different from Robertson. Which was my point that you completely missed (not that I held my breath). I'm sure you've seen that ancient symbol of the snake swallowing its tail. So it's the same with fundies like you: Robertson/Falwell/etc are the head, Christian-haters are the tail (or the other way around), but they are the same thing.
I would have thought the lesson, if there is one, is that to experience sexual arousal or sexual attraction is to be human, and that there is nothing to be ashamed about.
nobody's ashamed. just because some groups like Christians don't like to display their boners in public doesn't mean they don't appreciate or embrace sexuality. it's just they also embrace and wish to uphold the image of a decent and polite society given by their parents that doesn't include highlighting the genitals of the messiah.
if you prefer a more sexually liberal society, that's great. but i don't care to see Jesus with an erect penis any more than i care to see him defecating on the cross. we get it, he was human. his sexuality, however, was definately not the focus of the gospels, so we tend to celebrate the things that were focused on, such as his love, his sacrifice, and his sinless nature.
No way
It is strict about waiting until you get married...but once you are there all bets are off In fact, celibacy is frowned upon and the "natural state" is marraige. Sex is viewed as a great, good thing that should be experienced often There even exists a few hadith (not sure as to their authenticity...although nothing in the Quran says otherwise so there is no contradiction) that Prophet Mohammed said foreplay is essential before the guy goes in, and you shouldn't leave the bed until she is pleased (orgasm?).
I certainly agree that people should experience sexual attraction and not be ashamed of their sexuality. I can believe that people from hundreds of years ago may have been closer to that reality on average than today. But I still think that when one actually is comfortable with ones own sexuality one is inclined to go on sexual crusades to get the rest of the world on board. That sort of push to get others to loosen up, I think, reflects an unresolved inner uptightness one has not gotten over oneself. It is sort of like a thief advocating for loosening the regulations on theft. Scratching is a sure sign of an itch. But it's not a big deal either way.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The fact is that no one living knows what Jesus looked like and there is no historical evidence.
So take whatever artistic license you want.--whatever makes you feel good. Worship the ideals and not the fake portrait fom this artist, that artist, or the other artist. The only thing you can count on is that they all have it wrong.
So take whatever artistic license you want.--whatever makes you feel good. Worship the ideals and not the fake portrait fom this artist, that artist, or the other artist. The only thing you can count on is that they all have it wrong.
Are you suggesting that this is what I am doing in posting on this subject?
Who here is pushing others to loosen up? Are you suggesting that I am doing that?
I think it is a big deal. Please explain what you mean.
What I think is interesting is that you can't acknowledge Jesus as a sexual being without bringing up the topic of homosexuality. That signals fear to me. The fact that you acknowledge no same-sex tendencies within yourself is also a bit of a red flag. Why are you so afraid to embrace (or even acknowledge) that part of yourself? Are you saying you have never found another man to be attractive? I find that hard to believe. You do the "christ figure" shtick but run a mile when the topic turns to things that you yourself are afraid of. As if Christ himself wasn't bisexual. Indeed, the very notion of a strictly heterosexual Christ is utterly preposterous.
if you are going to begin your posts with an Alanis Morissette lyric then I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter